OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: Heaven, Hell and the Love of God by Jezz

[Editor]

Heaven, Hell and the Love of God
Jeremy Krieg

Heaven and hell is one of those topics that we don't like to talk about much in polite society. Even though as Christians we're supposed to believe in hell, many find themselves balking at the thought. The idea of wrathful God who sends people to a place where He punishes them for all eternity just doesn't sit right with us - it seems incompatible with the God of love and forgiveness revealed to us in Christ. And not only is hell something that many sincere Christians wrestle with, it is also a severe stumbling block to many earnest and sincere unbelievers - some of whom might otherwise be open to accepting Christianity. In the forms of Christianity traditionally found in the West (Roman Catholicism, Protestantism), we are accustomed to thinking of hell as a physical place where God pours out His wrath on sinners as punishment for their sins. The above reflects the typical gut reaction to this view of hell, and in my opinion it is not unjustified.

The Orthodox, however, have a somewhat different outlook. In this view, God's boundless love fills all people and all creation - "heaven" and "hell" are simply states within a person engendered by their reaction to this love. For those who love God, His love is a source of joy and bliss. But for those who are turned inward on themselves in selfishness, hiding from the truth, and hating God, His truth and His boundless and selfless love becomes the "consuming fire" and endless torment of their hell. In this present life the realities of heaven and hell are already here, but and in our weakness and spiritual blindness we are not always clearly able to distinguish them. But in the life to come, when Christ returns to raise the dead and fully reveals Himself (who is the Truth) and the love of the Father, then the difference will be clear for all to see. This is the final judgement.

I recently had the privilege seeing Les Misérables performed by Concordia College (a secondary school in Adelaide, South Australia). It was a fine production, and kudos must go to the students and staff for their efforts. But the thing that left the greatest impression on me was author Victor Hugo's deep and profound insights into the nature of God's love. I was deeply moved by the story, and I found that it perfectly illustrated the concepts which I have briefly outlined above.

(WARNING: for those who have not seen Les Misérables, the following contains spoilers.)

The story is set at around the time of the French revolution. It begins with the main character, Jean Valjean, in a labour camp - imprisoned for the heinous crime of stealing a loaf of bread to feed himself, his starving sister and her child. He has 14 years added to his 5 year sentence for trying to escape, but is finally released on parole. In his life in the real world he finds that he is discriminated against because of his convict status - being turned away by innkeepers, and paid poorly by employers (and treated badly by fellow employees). Finally he is taken in by the kindly bishop of Digne - who feeds him and offers him a place to stay. Despite the fact that the bishop is the first man to show kindness to him since he was paroled, during the night he steals some of the bishop's silverware and flees.

The police catch and quiz Valjean, asking how he ended up with the bishop's silverware. He tries to justify himself by telling them that the bishop had given it to him as a gift. So the police ask the bishop to confirm his story. And the bishop says a most extraordinary thing:

Valjean Arrested/Valjean Forgiven

That is right.
But my friend you left so early
Surely something slipped your mind
You forgot I gave these also
Would you leave the best behind?

© source where applicable

(All the lyrics for these songs can be found here.)

And he gave him two silver candlesticks in addition to that silverware that he had already taken. On account of this act of loving compassion and forgiveness, Valjean escapes conviction but is convicted by his consicence. He does as the bishop suggests and uses the gift to establish a new and honest life for himself. He tears up the parole slip and assumes a new identity and a new life dedicated to the service of others.

From the time he skips parole, Valjean is ruthlessly hunted by inspector Javert (the man who had released him on parole). Later in the story, Javert is caught by revolutionaries who wish to execute him. Valjean asks for Javert to be handed over to him, and at last the man who has been persecuting him is delivered into his hands. Javert insults him - "Once a thief, always a thief!" But instead of exacting the revenge that was due him (even though Javert's insult would have made it that much easier to do so), Valjean does as the bishop had done for him years before:

The First Attack

You are wrong, and always have been wrong.
I'm a man, no worse than any man.
You are free, and there are no conditions,
No bargains or petitions.
There's nothing that I blame you for
You've done your duty, nothing more.

© source where applicable

As long as he had known him, Javert had always seen Valjean as an inferior - a lawbreaker, a sinner, a pathetic human being whom God would judge. Valjean's act of love and forgiveness towards him has turned things on its head. And so we come to one of the most profound pieces in the entire musical - Javert's Suicide. It is extraordinarily deep and rich in its theological content, so I will be quoting large sections of it. Confronted with such selfless love Javert is not sure how to act - he thinks that Valjean's action must be some sort of devil's trick:

Javert's Suicide

Who is this man?
What sort of devil is he
To have me caught in a trap
And choose to let me go free?

© source where applicable

He reasons that Valjean was actually trying to get dominion over him by letting him live, so that he would be in his debt. He believed that must be some sort of cruel punishment:

Javert's Suicide

How can I now allow this man
To hold dominion over me?
This desperate man whom I have hunted
He gave me my life. He gave me freedom.
I should have perished by his hand
It was his right.
It was my right to die as well
Instead I live... but live in hell.

© source where applicable

He is confused, and with his hardened heart is unable to even tell if Valjean's actions are from heaven or from hell:

Javert's Suicide

And must I now begin to doubt,
Who never doubted all these years?
My heart is stone and still it trembles
The world I have known is lost in shadow.
Is he from heaven or from hell?

© source where applicable

And unable to cope with the torment, he commits suicide:

Javert's Suicide

And does he know
That granting me my life today
This man has killed me even so?

© source where applicable

What does this tell us about the love of God? As Hugo so powerfully sums up in the closing verses:

Wedding Chorale/Beggars at the Feast

Take my hand
And lead me to salvation.
Take my love,
For love is everlasting.

And remember
The truth that once was spoken
To love another person
Is to see the face of God!

© source where applicable

In the story above, I gave two examples of God's face being seen in the love of another person. In the first, we have the old Valjean, who has been driven to bitterness and despair by a lifetime of suffering injustice, only to be confronted by the face of God in the forgiveness and generosity of the bishop. This love transforms Valjean into a new man, lifting him up out of the despair and bitterness of his old way of life which had driven him to stealing, and replacing it with the the same kind of selfless dedication to others (even his enemies) that he saw in the bishop's example. In stark contrast to this, Javert is so proud and assured of his own moral superiority (ie, self-justified) that not only does he not love, but worse - he does not even recognise true, selfless love when it stares him in the face! He is so blinded by the hardness of his heart that instead he thinks God's love is a cruel trick played on him by a devil in order to torment him! For my mind, this captures the very essence and horror of what hell is - the plight of a person who is no longer capable of love.

When we see a "good vs evil" story like Les Misérables, we are always tempted to cheer when the bad guy (Javert) meets with the end that we feel he deserves. Be on your guard against such feelings, because the one who feels that way will end up in the same hell as Javert did ("Judge not, lest thou be judged" - Matthew 7:1). Unless we can look upon with our enemies with compassion, love and forgiveness as Jean Valjean did, we too may find ourselves unable to recognise or to bear God's love when we finally see it. For those who do not love as God loves - loving even their enemies with all their heart - true love (that is, God's love) will be a source of eternal torment. Let us fall upon God's mercy and continually turn to Him with all our heart in repentance, and pray for our enemies, so that God will grant that we are able to love as He loves, and that "we may be sons of our Father in heaven" (Matt 5:45).

---

Notice - The featuring of a particular article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statementor be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.


EDITOR'S NOTE:

This section of TheologyWeb is very closely moderated, please read this forum's decorum prior to posting anything questionable. If you have a question, or would like to submit an article, please contact me, the Editor, via PM.

Thanks,

The Editor.

[furay]

Great stuff.

[spiritmech]

I love Les Mis. It's a great book ... one of the best ever written, I think. The Priest is great. I also love the part when Jean Valjean first takes the little girl's hand.
sm

[Rusty T]

Definitely a keeper.

[lee_merrill]

This is a great novel, however, the point is missed, that hell is not just a reaction, but an action, by God, a punishment, the interpretation given in this article makes it seem like God is sending love and blessing, and it turns into tormenting results, but not by God's design.

Are we to say that hell is frustrating God? That he said "A", and it came out "Z"?

No, hell is by God's design, and the punishment there, the result is what he intends, exactly that.

Blessings,
Lee

[Rdr. Arsenios]

This is a great novel, however, the point is missed, that hell is not just a reaction, but an action, by God, a punishment, the interpretation given in this article makes it seem like God is sending love and blessing, and it turns into tormenting results, but not by God's design.

Are we to say that hell is frustrating God? That he said "A", and it came out "Z"?

No, hell is by God's design, and the punishment there, the result is what he intends, exactly that.

Blessings,
Lee

I think Jeremy can answer for himself, but the point he is making, vis a vis Hugo's Jean Valjean and Inspecter Javert is that Jean lived a redeemed, and thereby heavenly, life loving all, even his persecutor, whereas Javert lived a self justified life of always being right, and persecuting those he was convinced were in the wrong, and thereby lived such a demonized life that he was unable to know the grace of God when it came to him face to face in the person of the one he was persecuting.

In the novel, he muses to himself, fairly early, looking into the waters below [as I recall], "If ever you should err..." And he held himself up to this standard of righteousness, and when he found he had so overwhelmingly erred in his persecution of a man who can only now be described as a holy man, his self-destruction was unavoidable, and the more tragic...

Great story of triumph - And that priest is a Roman Big-O in my book, even though, of course, the work is fictional...

And a great story of tragedy...

Hugo is the best, right up there with the Russian Dostoyevski...

Arsenios

[Jezz]

This is a great novel,

It is more than just a novel. It is a parable - a story told in order to illustrate a spiritual truth about the nature of God. Just as Christ Himself spoke in stories to illustrate spiritual truths.

...however, the point is missed, that hell is not just a reaction, but an action, by God,

No, this is a strawman. I never said that hell was "just a reaction". Of course hell isn't "just a reaction" without any corresponding action - that's an oxymoron. By a definition, a reaction presupposes the existence of a corresponding action! And the action of God which causes hell, as I described in my article, is none other than the awesome, incomparable, boundless and selfless love of God Himself for His creation, which is an all-consuming fire.

...a punishment, the interpretation given in this article makes it seem like God is sending love and blessing, and it turns into tormenting results, but not by God's design.

Yes, that is the interpretation given in this article. That's because it is the correct interpretation. God is love. Everything God does is because He loves. You try and solve the dilemma of God's love and hell by claiming that God doesn't love those who end up in hell.

Are we to say that hell is frustrating God? That he said "A", and it came out "Z"?

No, hell is not frustrating God. God does not get frustrated. God says: "I will pour out my abundant love on all of my creation", and that's exactly what He does. Noone will be able to frustrate His intentions - not even the demons - will be able to stop Him from loving them, no matter how much they try. If some in His creation cannot bear the shame and torment that His love brings them, that is their problem - not His. God will love them anyway.

No, hell is by God's design, and the punishment there, the result is what he intends, exactly that.

Of course hell is by God's design. He desires to pour out His love on all, and He will love all.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Arsenios: ... but the point he is making, vis a vis Hugo's Jean Valjean and Inspecter Javert is that Jean lived a redeemed, and thereby heavenly, life loving all, even his persecutor, whereas Javert lived a self justified life of always being right...

Yes, I agree, and it's a good novel and a good parable, and good counsel and warning, but not, I think a good description of the dynamics of hell.

Lee: ...however, the point is missed, that hell is not just a reaction, but an action, by God...

Jezz: By a definition, a reaction presupposes the existence of a corresponding action!

Just due to an reaction, then? Certainly I didn't mean hell is a reaction to no action, I meant that hell is not simply a bad reaction to the love of God, hell is an intention and a purpose on God's part, not a mistake in receiving transmission, of the love of God, and responding inappropriately.

Lee: the interpretation given in this article makes it seem like God is sending love and blessing, and it turns into tormenting results, but not by God's design.

Jezz: That's because it is the correct interpretation. God is love. Everything God does is because He loves. You try and solve the dilemma of God's love and hell by claiming that God doesn't love those who end up in hell.

Actually, I believe he does, "those who want to go over" (Lk. 16:22), does this not express God's desire here, within these people? He loves them, and he punishes them, and the wires have not been crossed, the pains of hell are not due to a misunderstanding.

Matthew 18:9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

Jesus doesn't say, "Understand and accept the love of God, and avoid hell!" He says, deal with sin, whatever it may cost you, and that way, avoid hell.

Jezz: If some in His creation cannot bear the shame and torment that His love brings them, that is their problem - not His.

Yes, but you must be holding that God did not have a purpose for that. So to have his purpose to love them and for them to receive that love, for that not to work out, implies frustration.

Blessings,
Lee

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I [do not] think [Javert's response to Valjean's saintly grace] is a good description of the dynamics of hell.

It is, you are right, but a symptom of a tormented soul, whereas Valjean's extension of forgiveness and life saving love is but the symptom of a soul at peace. Yet can you not see that the one comes from hell, the other from heaven? For in this life, we are promised an earnest of the life of the kingdom to come, and that means that we can live in obedience to Christ's commandments, and thereby have "Thy will, as it is in heaven..." right here on earth, and not MY will, as it is in hell... We get more than just a taste of either or both, we get an earnest...

Jesus doesn't say, "Understand and accept the love of God, and avoid hell!" He says, deal with sin, whatever it may cost you, and that way, avoid hell.

Well, there is hell, and there is hell - there is hell on earth, and there is the hell of the last judgement - Yet if we come to Christ, we are given heaven on earth, and that heaven is found in the TRIBULATION of our earthly existence, because Christ tells us that His peace is not the peace of the world - And when He uses peace, He is referring to peace within, regardless of what goes on without, the person... It is noetic peace - It is salvation - It is heaven on earth that nothing can take away...

As for those who do not have this peace, but live in the ever-changing quick-sands of day to day successes and failures, they are bweing likewise a foretasting of the life of the kingdom to come for them... And it is hell... Javert's world...

[Rowland]

I love the story but not your conclusion. Jean Valjean is not God so does not have the power to save Inspector Javert from himself. God is all powerfull. He can even do the impossible such as saving Inspector Javert.

Not only is the idea of eternal torment repugnant to human sensibilities it is also damaging to God's reputation. How can God, who loves all of His children, not have the ability to save all of them? Why must we believe that Inspector Javert's suicide puts an end to the story of God's work to save him? When men make a rocket to go to the moon we expect that it may fail. If God has made His creatures to enjoy His presence for all eternity we should not expect Him to fail. This is not a matter of human beings succeeding or failing. We are talking about God succeeding or failing.

If the Bible is so clear in its teaching that human beings who rebel against God will spend eternity in hell why is there no mention of this in the entire OT? God doesn't mention hell to Adam and Eve. Nor is hell one of the punishments mentioned in the list of punishments given to the Israelites as a warning for disobedience. And if Christians are truely embarrassed by the doctrine of hell as I believe they are, shouldn't this be a sign that the doctrine of hell just might not be biblical? After all, aren't Christians guided by the Holy Spirit? Would the Holy Spirit give Christians feelings of embarrassment if these feelings were not pointing to a truth?

Rowland

[Jawa Man]

Jezz, I thought your article was da bomb diggity. However, I don't understand one thing. According to what you said, isn't it possible then that a person in hell can repent and admit they were wrong and had a corrupt understanding of God's love? This however doesn't seem to be a biblical teaching, as far as I know.

[smaller]

Most "great" stories revolve around biblical simulations. Most close, some fitting, but there is no replacing the "real" Good News. Lord of the Rings and The Matrix also come to mind.

You mention the distaste that unsaved society has about hell and it's promotion. Christianity that adhere's to people being fried alive forever is very distasteful. No man in his right mind would even consider bothering to waste his time doing such a vile thing. How much less God?

What Christians do not want to face is the possibility that God could possibly be greater than their own tepid imaginations. They want to overlook the FACT that God Himself openly stated through the pen of Isaiah and other writers that He both creates and uses EVIL and that conclusion should be inescapable for any true believer.

So we can look at the characters in this particular tome and we can praise the good, and rightfully so. The difficult part is to understand the what's why's and how's of how evil working in the protractor served as well.

That's the hard part, and I believe true Christianity holds a clear answer for that issue.

Most of you serve a God who says "bad dog" to evil and then not just punishes the dog, but then roasts the dog on an eternal spit. That is just abhorrent.

God can and does USE EVIL and EVIL is God's servant because He Is Greater than any "thing." You just have not gotten that far into the book yet. It' just too bad that God has slated most to see this from the other side of the ledger of life but it's not my story.

enjoy!

smaller

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I love the story but not your conclusion. Jean Valjean is not God so does not have the power to save Inspector Javert from himself. God is all powerfull. He can even do the impossible such as saving Inspector Javert.

God sent each of them to the other, that they both should find love and salvation. One received it, and the other rrejected it. Unless you are arguing that God forces salvation on the unrepentant who keep on sinning when they know they are wrong to be doing so, and mock God...??

Not only is the idea of eternal torment repugnant to human sensibilities it is also damaging to God's reputation. How can God, who loves all of His children, not have the ability to save all of them? Why must we believe that Inspector Javert's suicide puts an end to the story of God's work to save him? When men make a rocket to go to the moon we expect that it may fail. If God has made His creatures to enjoy His presence for all eternity we should not expect Him to fail. This is not a matter of human beings succeeding or failing. We are talking about God succeeding or failing.

We know that God loves Javert, and we do NOT know the outcome of his life at the Last Judgement... So do you conclude from this that he was NOT living a hellish life on earth, and that Valjean was NOT living a heavenly life on earth?

If the Bible is so clear in its teaching that human beings who rebel against God will spend eternity in hell why is there no mention of this in the entire OT? God doesn't mention hell to Adam and Eve. Nor is hell one of the punishments mentioned in the list of punishments given to the Israelites as a warning for disobedience. And if Christians are truely embarrassed by the doctrine of hell as I believe they are, shouldn't this be a sign that the doctrine of hell just might not be biblical? After all, aren't Christians guided by the Holy Spirit? Would the Holy Spirit give Christians feelings of embarrassment if these feelings were not pointing to a truth?
Rowland

Javert showed God, in his final act of life, his suicide, just WHO was in charge of Javert's life - And it was NOT God, but Javert himself. Hitler also committed suicide... It is a common way for such people to end their lives...

And on the issue of sin and hell, like most things, if you don't GO there, you won't have to BE there... And ig you insist on going there, then THERE is where you have chosen to be, and you will be there...

So as a morality tale, it tells us to not go there via Javert, and to go there via Jean Valjean...

No need to head off into the OT vs NT toolies... :-)

Arsenios

[Jezz]

Yes, I agree, and it's a good novel and a good parable, and good counsel and warning, but not, I think a good description of the dynamics of hell.

Of course. But you need to realise that no good descriptions of the dynamics of hell exist. None of us have yet experienced hell in its fulness (and I pray that none of us ever do), so we don't have the experience to draw on to describe the dynamics accurately. Allegory is the best we can ever do.

However, it would be fair to say that what Javert experienced was a foretaste of hell.

Just due to an reaction, then?

Due to a reaction, yes. But again you go with the "just". There is no such thing as "just" a reaction. It

Certainly I didn't mean hell is a reaction to no action,

Then why do you insist on saying "Just due to a reaction"? What else did you hope to imply?

I meant that hell is not simply a bad reaction to the love of God, hell is an intention and a purpose on God's part, not a mistake in receiving transmission, of the love of God, and responding inappropriately.

This is a classic case of false dichotomy. Monergists seem to love them.

Yes, I agree. God's action is intentional and purposeful. This does nothing to disprove the fact that it is also a reaction.

Hell is not "just" an action by God, and it is not "just" a reaction by His creatures. It is both.

You, as a monergist, seem to believe that God must determine both the action and the reaction, and that if He doesn't that somehow detracts from His sovereignty. Which is why synergists continually accuse your god of being nothing more than a puppeteer. It is interesting that many heresies have sprung up from the seemingly innocous premise of wanting to protect God's sovereignty (eg, Arianism and Nestorianism).

Actually, I believe he does, "those who want to go over" (Lk. 16:22), does this not express God's desire here, within these people? He loves them, and he punishes them, and the wires have not been crossed, the pains of hell are not due to a misunderstanding.

But the thing is, there is no such thing as "objective" punishment. What constitutes a punishment always depends on the subject.

Matthew 18:9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

Jesus doesn't say, "Understand and accept the love of God, and avoid hell!" He says, deal with sin, whatever it may cost you, and that way, avoid hell.

Another monergist false dichotomy.

All sin is the result of a failure to understand and accept the love God. Or, better put, all sin is the failure to love God. To say "deal with sin, whatever it may cost you" is to say effectively the same thing as "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your soul, and all your strength".

If some in His creation cannot bear the shame and torment that His love brings them, that is their problem - not His.

Yes, but you must be holding that God did not have a purpose for that.

No, I believe that God had a purpose for that - the purpose is to allow His creatures the potential to reciprocate His love of their own free will.

So to have his purpose to love them and for them to receive that love, for that not to work out, implies frustration.

I don't see exactly what it is that you think isn't "working out" here. God's purposes are as follows:

1. To love all of His creatures.
2. To allow all of His creatures the free will to choose whether or not they wish to reciprocate His love.

In the Orthodox view, God accomplishes both of these goals. So which purpose of God is not being accomplished? Where is His frustration, in this view?

[Jezz]

I love the story but not your conclusion.

Well, our conclusions should not be based on what we like or dislike, but that which is true.

Jean Valjean is not God so does not have the power to save Inspector Javert from himself. God is all powerfull. He can even do the impossible such as saving Inspector Javert.

But that's just it - I don't believe that God can do the "impossible" - if by "impossible" you mean a logical contradiction. For example, God cannot make a square circle, or a rock so heavy that He can't lift it, or make Himself to cease to exist. These things are logically contradictory. More on this below.

Not only is the idea of eternal torment repugnant to human sensibilities it is also damaging to God's reputation. How can God, who loves all of His children, not have the ability to save all of them? Why must we believe that Inspector Javert's suicide puts an end to the story of God's work to save him?

I didn't say that Inspector Javert's suicide puts an end to God's work to save him. I don't believe that it is. I see "the love of God" and "God's work of salvation" as more-or-less synonymous. The torments of hell are the torments of those who do not want to be saved, caused by God saving them.

When men make a rocket to go to the moon we expect that it may fail. If God has made His creatures to enjoy His presence for all eternity we should not expect Him to fail. This is not a matter of human beings succeeding or failing. We are talking about God succeeding or failing.

Yes, we are talking about God succeeding or failing. And as I pointed out in my response to lee, I do not believe that God fails. Here are God's two goals (as I wrote to lee merrill):

1. To love all of His creatures.
2. To endow His creatures with the potential to freely love Him in return if they desire.

God does not fail in either goal.

But the thing is, if we take seriously the fact that God has achieved goal 2, then we must take seriously the fact that some of God's creatures may forever freely choose to not love God. Our will is not truly free unless we have this freedom. And if we have this freedom, then we must acknowledge the fact that some people may choose to exercise it the wrong way, and end up in hell. It is a logical contradiction to say that all of God's creatures - whom He created with the ability to love Him or not love Him, according to their own will - must all love Him.

I am certainly sensitive to the idea that God will not give up saving His creatures, and I believe that all people may be saved. But it is going beyond the evidence of Scriptural and Patristic tradition to suggest that this must happen. Indeed, it goes against Christ's warnings which indicated that, at the very least, hell is a real possiblity. It doesn't make much sense for Him to warn against an outcome which couldn't possibly eventuate.

And if Christ tells us that hell is a possibility, then all we can say is that all persons may be saved. We cannot say that all will be.

If the Bible is so clear in its teaching that human beings who rebel against God will spend eternity in hell why is there no mention of this in the entire OT? God doesn't mention hell to Adam and Eve. Nor is hell one of the punishments mentioned in the list of punishments given to the Israelites as a warning for disobedience.

There is barely any mention of any sort of afterlife in the OT. Christ revealed lots of new bits of information when He came to earth. So I wouldn't push this argument too far, or you'll end up disproving heaven along with hell.

And if Christians are truely embarrassed by the doctrine of hell as I believe they are, shouldn't this be a sign that the doctrine of hell just might not be biblical?

I'm not embarrassed at all by the Orthodox view of hell. I am embarrassed by (eg) lee merril's doctrine of hell, which is why I discarded it a long time ago.

After all, aren't Christians guided by the Holy Spirit? Would the Holy Spirit give Christians feelings of embarrassment if these feelings were not pointing to a truth?

Yes. I believe that they are pointing to a truth that Western Christianity got the whole idea of hell horribly wrong (notably Protestant fundies). The Orthodox have been saying this for some time.